There are two ways that statement can be taken; both have a grain of truth.

There was a time when the news media was Walter Cronkite and his ilk. They reported the news - "this is what happened".

But Vietnam got us more into investigative journalism - not just events, but why are the events happening the way they are. It was more subjective, more prone to bias.

The response to the issue of bias was to tell both sides. But that gave us "he said, she said" over and over, with no judgment as to who was telling the truth.

The result is that we went from certainty to doubt, from reporting facts about events to reporting who said what and how loudly. (You can argue that we weren't certain before, or what we were certain of was not necessarily the truth. That's not my point. My point is that we went from reporting facts about events to reporting people's statements and viewpoints, as if all of them were equal. So now people see that they just have to state their viewpoint loudly and publicly, and the loudness and public-ness will get reported as if they somehow validated the viewpoint.)

The other way in which it is somewhat reasonable to blame the media is that we now have many more media options. We no longer have just the three TV networks and AP and UPI. Now we also have Fox, CNN, The Drudge Report, Jon Stewart, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Anyone can throw up a web site for an "organization" fronting for their own personal view, or for an astroturf organization. There are many more voices, and because of this, certainty is being lost. (That's not a bad thing; the "certainty" was sometimes wrong.)

I think both these points come down to this: We had gatekeepers, whose job was to find out the truth and tell it to us. But the gatekeepers stopped doing that job and, instead of telling us the truth, started merely telling us things that were true. The truth then became not an objective reality, but merely a matter of what you could make stick in the public discourse. This leads to polarization, because there is no objective truth with which to confront extreme positions. All you can use is an opposite extreme position.

To hopefully paraphrase Ortega y Gasset correctly (as he described the rise of totalitarianism - fascist or communist - in Europe, in The Revolt of the Masses): we are witnessing the rise of a man who feels no need to persuade or give reasons, who is satisfied to impose his worldview on others through raw power.

I am always skeptical about claims of heightened polarization. The 20th Century consisted of nearly constant ideological warfare, for the world and for the U.S. At home, the U.S. has been ideologically polarized for centuries. We even fought a Civil War that one time.

Really, in your post you highlight the more important element that turns the political landscape into a mere tribal battle: when the existing system of government basically loses its legitimacy, and people no longer feel compelled to play by the old rules. The only rule is Power, and that end justifies any means. We may be approaching that point, but I think it is a distinct issue from ideological polarization itself.

People who don't have an iota of understanding of how federal courts work should really not be commenting about their politics, lest they look like fools. With regards to the ACA challenge, it's really quite simple:

1) There is currently no precedent for the lower courts to work with regarding the federal government regulating inaction.
2) Commerce Clause jurisprudence has always been a controversial subject area because everyone agrees the Federal government's powers under that clause have expanded gradually and significantly since Gibbons v. Ogden (1821), and this, of course, bothers the more conservative judges who prefer an originalist jurisprudence.

So rather than this being about health care, the conservative judges voting against the legislation view it as a referendum on whether there are any practical limits to the Commerce clause. This is a view that has been mainstream conservative (amongst judges anyway) for at least half a century, if not longer.

In particular don't have fears about the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is generally excellent. The lower courts are doing their best with what the Supreme Court gives them. There's opportunism here and there in lower courts, but not too much. As an institution, it is quite remarkably strong and well-respected.

Given your concern though, it would seem you should chide Ezra Klein and Dahlia Lithwick for sitting on the side of the room that wants courts to be more political. I know WW is on that side of the room too based on his recent posts.

Anyway, MS, why do you think Ezra Klein writes what he writes? Answer: If it's already happening (by the other guys), it's okay (for us) to do it too. A little bit juvenile way of thinking, but that's not a first for Mr. Klein and there it is. I wouldn't take that home to the bank as fact like you do, MS. I'd take it home to the laboratory to figure out what I'm being sold. Are you aware Mr. Klein is what could be called partisan?

Think of it this way MS. When reading the excerpt you selected, recall that progressive legal theories and all that call for the judicial branch to move away from the more typical/technical role of interpreting words, and to be involved in more active ways, even out in front of legislatures, sending signals and warnings. There's a academic name for it I just forget what it is. That's not the purpose of a court, but wink and nod and the fact they actually can do it is the reasoning. Plus judges are typically very smart, so what's the harm, is also sometimes said. Here, Klein adds: they bad guys are doing it anyway, so we should do it too. I could see his follow up line being: let's just be real, the practical fact is judges have this power.

But as you properly point out, if they abuse it, for how long will they have it? Since the Supreme Court has decades of responsibly exercising power, I think they could get away with it for quite some time. I mean, they have for pete's sake.

I agree with doug, when the government is a leviathan of immense importance, economically(taxes, pensions, wages, benefits), and morally(gay marriage, transfats, global warming). there's no choice left but to become mere vessels screaming for our morals to be abided by, or our economic interests to be listened to.

maybe that's what will be done with all our technology and labor saving devices. everyone will just become a political activist trying to collect rent from the government and pass laws telling their neighbors what to do. a beautiful utopia of perfect democracy scratching and clawing each other's eyes out.

American politics increasingly resembles a kind of total war in which each party mobilizes every conceivable asset at its disposal against the other. Most governors were once conscientious objectors in that struggle. No more."

What?! Where do people dream up this stuff?

I didn't this behavior when the governor of Montana (D) and Indiana (R) were on PBS Newshour.

It's awfully hard to judge the amount of current vs. past political polarization. It's certainly been pretty bad for my entire adult voting life. To review the central political events since my first votes as far as I've perceived them: the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Bush v. Gore, swiftboating John Kerry, Iraq (invasion and 04-07 anomie), Obama's election, Obamacare, and the Tea Party. I'm sure I'm missing quite a bit, but this is what sticks in my mind.

The Supreme Court had its hands in the mix for Bush v. Gore (probably top of the list for partisan court decisions of the past half-century), and looks set to decide the fate of the ACA ("Obamacare" for those who insist on using "Democrat" as an adjective) as well. I predict 5-4 against the ACA and some more Democratic (actually, the small d works there too) weeping about partisanship in the courts. Ugh. Well this post is just going to make me sad all day.

Great post. My happy thought might be that people, having realized how intensively parties produce nonsense and fracture, we are generally as a species starting to reject them. The intense partisanship might be the Qaddafiesque rear guard effort by people accustomed to power to claim relevance.

But my dour and paternal reaction is that this is a price of too much government. When the state becomes the endorser of behavior, ethics and religion as well as 40% of all checks by volume, it really matters a whole lot that the folks you trust have as much power as possible. It shouldn't be surprising that in cases like this, tribalism replaces other forms of reason.

My happiest thought of all, though, is that I doubt more than 20% of the people actually really believe in their parties. We ought to be able to exile that many, or at least cram them into prison camps for re-education.